The Big Question
Ever since I was a small child, I have felt as though my life has been centered around the outdoors. It’s something simple that has always come naturally what about nature is coming natural to you? to me. My memories of preschool consist of nothing but the one time a visitor brought an owl what was your reaction to the owl? to the classroom, and when we would go on hikes through the woods. Most likely, this was because that was all I had paid any attention to. When I need to calm down, relieve stress you can cut all three words down to one. When you are describing and trying to paint a picture for your readers, make sure you’re not using different variations of the same word. One word will do. or just let my mind wander in any direction it needed to, I would go on a trail near and around my neighborhood by yourself? In preschool?. I know every single square inch of the Bill Ryle Riley? trails, to the point that I can direct you away from giant mud holes, (or towards if your any fun), or take you to teepees and sites a homeless man used to occupy Instead of telling us what you can showing us what you can do on the trails, show us. I can even show you my favorite log. It’s just off the path, comfy enough to sit on, and hollow enough to crawl inside. If there’s ever a time I’m not able to leave the house, say maybe if it’s too dark, then even the simple act of reading and learning about the environment around me would lift any foul mood I had set myself into I’m not sure how this relates to the rest of the essay. It was through my reading, and my urge to surround myself with anyone with similar interests, that I learned what sort of peril the ecosystem of the world is in.
Last year, I went on a white water rafting trip to Utah, through a program called Outward Bound. Before I had gone, I had viewed it as my test. It was my test to see if I could handle or enjoy living in the great outdoors for extended periods of time, because that is precisely what my life dream consists of. To my own jubilation consider word choice, I LOVED it! I felt so free what made you feel free?, I even climbed a huge tree that must have been 150 years old, and took a nap on a branch wide enough for me to stretch out on without fear What were you feeling? Try to explain to readers what these experiences were like. It will be easier to connect and understand your love for the outdoors if you take a stab at trying.. My everyday sights and sounds were so full of beauty, there were times I couldn’t decide whether I wanted cry, or just sit there with a big stupid grin consisting of childlike wonder on my face. The stars were so breath taking, that I almost feel remorse at not being able to find the words to be able to have you feel as I did, as I gazed up at the sky that looked as if a dark pool were jammed full of floating diamonds, paused mid-swirl. The coercion of the river acted as though its main goal was to buck us off the raft, and to present us with a never-ending course of obstacles. Every day was a new challenge that’s how most days are that I accepted whole heartedly passive vs. active voice. It was as if it was, wasn’t it? every bend and turn of the river was a total mystery. I felt a driving need to paddle that much faster, to make the discovery of finding out just what it was that lay ahead. But, it might’ve been that I was the only one who was wondering. How did the water feel splashing against your face? What muscles did you use to paddle? Who were you with? Were you nervous? The guides had a map detailing every rock, pebble, and crevice we could possibly pass on our trek down the river. Not much mystery to be found there… or possibly anywhere in America this sentence is opening up a new can of worms without further description.
Ever since I have become educated on the problems of the environment what problems?, I’ve been feeling this overwhelming sense of confusion and frustration pointed towards the inquest of how mankind could be so incredibly ignorant and stupid how are you fighting it?. All the way through the 1900 century, even the experts thought wildlife and game was an abundant never ending resource that could never be depleted. They couldn’t have been more wrong. In the early 1900’s even extremely abundant animals such as the white tailed deer were expected to go extinct ?. The positive effect of this, if you could consider it that, is that it was a slap in the face for Americans. Conservation Acts were set into place, which are still in effect even today, making a difference towards helping wildlife rightfully take back what once was theirs.
The main question I have doing a tap dance on my brain(cute) , is how are we going to stop the seemingly inevitable train wreck of the total loss of nature? Is it possible, for humans to stop going against the powerful force of nature, and join it? Is there any mystery left to be felt, as the settlers once felt on their quest across their newly discovered world? Alex- You have a good start here. It was personal enough to where I felt like I could really connect and understand the author. You have a good use of language. Some things to work on and discuss over the semester may be having a clearer goal and main idea for your piece. I was not really able to pinpoint what readers were supposed to take away from the piece.
Hey Alex!
I can tell we are going to get along well from your letter. I, like you, am very girly, outdoorsy, and a republican. Here are some other defining characteristics:
I am going on my third year of being a vegetarian.
Junior at Drake University. I am double majoring in Public Relations and English Writing.
I was born and raised in California and moved to Libertyville, Illinois in seventh grade. Libertyville is a suburb northwest of Chicago.
I ran the Des Moines Marathon in the fall and the Half-Marathon in 2010.
I am in love with my dog Lucy; she is a puggle. Ash, the cat I found on the side of the road as a baby. And Dottie, my spinster kitty.
I’m a firm believer in the magic of yoga pants. Yoga on the other hand, I don’t have the patience for.
I love writing and I think its not one of the best ways to express ourselves and we can learn so much about each other through it.
You can also go to my website, coriclark.com to see some of my blog and other stuff. I’m looking forward to working with you.
Happy weekend =]
Letter of Introduction (posted January 20) Alexandra J. Lidgett 18 January 2012 Mr. Johnson Block 1 Your New Best Friend I was told to write an essay, all about myself. At first I thought, “Well hey; all I do is talk about myself anyway. This should be a piece of cake.” But then all my brainstorming ideas were essentially a large compilation of random facts with little correlation to one another. That’s not what makes an essay. So I decided to describe the three main parts of myself that make up the bipolar person I am. The first being I’m a stud, the second, a beauty queen, and the third, which describes everything the first two don’t, is my astrology sign Pisces. The word “stud” is defined as a male animal, such as a stallion, that is kept for breeding. Well, I’m a female, and not planning on breeding anytime soon. But unfortunately, the Urbandictionary.com definition includes some choice words that seem to demand a certain level of companionship between us before I can use them in front of you. So we’re left with me being a stallion. By this, I mean I’m an animal. I’d rather be outside all day every day, then inside. The indoors makes me feel claustrophobic, and maybe a little uneasy. I’m one of those nature freaks who want to be a zoologist and a major wildlife conservationist. Yet, I’m a Republican. But that’s off topic. The point is I love fishing, wearing camouflage hats, and I’m working on my hunting license. Anything and everything that has to do with the outdoors, I’m involved in. That includes farm work. I take an animal science agriculture class, and we run a large greenhouse and a barn full of animals. I also happen to be the President of the FFA (Future Farmers of America). However, this is only one third, of what makes up who I am. On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I love fashion and dressing to the nine’s. I have long, blonde hair that I honestly enjoy spending an hour and a half of my time each day curling and giving it some Texas height (I completely refuse to wear Bump-Its). I consider it my meditation time. I’m a huge fan of bargain shopping, including going to places like the Bargain Bin and Goodwill, so I am not ashamed to brag about having two overflowing closets. Shopping for jaw-dropping clothes is one of my obsessions, or rather, hobbies. If I could be covered in the color gold, sparkles, shimmer, and rhinestones, and have it be practical, I would be. Gaudy, trendy clothing is right up my alley of pure happiness. How I dress and what I do, don’t necessarily describe my personality. I’m sure you’ve picked up some tidbits by now, but maybe not the deeper stuff that comes from spending time with someone. My zodiac sign, Pisces, does an alright job with describing the type of person I’ve shaped up to be. Though my astrology sign is very wrong, in saying I’m supposed to be shy. I am completely comfortable with, and enjoy this thing our generation seems to have forgotten. It’s the idea of companionable silence. I view "small talk" as the anti-Christ. I’ll occasionally partake in it, just to make a stranger feel comfortable in a new environment, but that’s about it. Talking is meant to make you happy, promote a hearty belly laugh, or learn some sort of interesting information. Meaningless gibber-gabber that won’t mean anything the next day drives me up the wall. I’m not an introvert, I’m just relaxed. I would however agree with the statement saying that I’m loyal. Once you’re in my heart, I’ll keep you there forever. It’s kinda cheesy, but true. The Pisces characteristic page I found on Google, would also tell you that I’m imaginative, and a bit spacey. It’ll tell you that a Pisces needs her friends to help ground her. Well all of my friends know by now, that grounding isn’t necessary. I’m up in the clouds in my perfect dreamland. What isn’t yet a reality will be. That’s my mindset, and they’re well aware that I can make it happen. I’m stubborn that way. In conclusion, I’m an animal, a diva, and a Pisces. I hope I made this somewhat enjoyable for you to read, because I’m planning on having our working together be a fun time, instead of some boring school assignment we’re forced to work through. Through my writing, you have probably noticed that I use a heavy amount of colloquialism. This may be one of the problems we need to work through during our time together. In any case, it was a pleasure to meet you!
Personal Reflection on Topic of Inquiry(posted RHS January 27 -- 171 January 29)
Alexandra Lidgett
27 January 2012
Mr. Johnson
Block 1 The Big Question
Ever since I was a small child, I have felt as though my life has been centered around the outdoors. It’s something simple that has always come naturally to me. My memories of preschool consist of nothing but the one time a visitor brought an owl to the classroom, and when we would go on hikes through the woods. Most likely, this was because that was all I had paid any attention to. When I need to calm down, relieve stress, or just let my mind wander in any direction it needed to, I would go on a trail near and around my neighborhood. I know every single square inch of the Bill Ryle trails, to the point that I can direct you away from giant mud holes, (or towards if your any fun), or take you to teepees and sites a homeless man used to occupy. I can even show you my favorite log. It’s just off the path, comfy enough to sit on, and hollow enough to crawl inside. If there’s ever a time I’m not able to leave the house, say maybe if it’s too dark, then even the simple act of reading and learning about the environment around me would lift any foul mood I had set myself into. It was through my reading, and my urge to surround myself with anyone with similar interests, that I learned what sort of peril the ecosystem of the world is in.
Last year, I went on a white water rafting trip in Utah, through a program called Outward Bound. Before I had gone, I had viewed it as my test. It was my test to see if I could handle or enjoy living in the great outdoors for extended periods of time, because that is precisely what my life dream consists of. To my own jubilation, I LOVED it! I felt so free, I even climbed a huge tree that must have been 150 years old, and took a nap on a branch wide enough for me to stretch out on without fear. My everyday sights and sounds were so full of beauty, there were times I couldn’t decide whether I wanted cry, or just sit there with a big stupid grin consisting of childlike wonder on my face. The stars were so breath taking, that I almost feel remorse at not being able to find the words to be able to have you feel as I did, as I gazed up at the sky that looked as if a dark pool were jammed full of floating diamonds, paused mid-swirl. The coercion of the river acted as though its main goal was to buck us off the raft, and to present us with a never ending course of obstacles. Every day was a new challenge that I accepted whole heartedly. It was as if every bend and turn of the river was a total mystery. I felt a driving need to paddle that much faster, to make the discovery of finding out just what it was that lay ahead. But, it might’ve been that I was the only one who was wondering. The guides had a map detailing every rock, pebble, and crevice we could possibly pass on our trek down the river. Not much mystery to be found there… or possibly anywhere in America.
Ever since I have become educated on the problems of the environment, I’ve been feeling this overwhelming sense of confusion and frustration pointed towards the inquest of how mankind could be so incredibly ignorant and stupid. All the way through the 1900 century, even the experts thought wildlife and game was an abundant never ending resource that could never be depleted. They couldn’t have been more wrong. In the early 1900’s even extremely abundant animals such as the white tailed deer were expected to go extinct. The positive effect of this, if you could consider it that, is that it was a slap in the face for Americans. Conservation Acts were set into place, which are still in effect even today, making a difference towards helping wildlife rightfully take back what once was theirs.
The main question I have doing a tap dance on my brain, is how are we going to stop the seemingly inevitable train wreck of the total loss of nature? Is it possible, for humans to stop going against the powerful force of nature, and join it? Is there any mystery left to be felt, as the settlers once felt on their quest across their newly discovered world?
Definition Paper
Nature is a concept, so broad and vague, that it really comes down to personal opinion and experience. Nature is defined in so many different ways, it becomes a word that
The term ‘Nature’ is defined by dictionary.com as, “the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization”. Yet I have to disagree and say it truly is anything still residing in its untainted[CC1] state. Why can’t humans be a part of nature also? Are we not animals ourselves? There are a large number of people who would like to disagree with that and argue that humans are not animals. I would ask them if they ever took a biology class in high school. Humans can be one with nature, as long as they respect it. Therefore, the second definition found on dictionary.com saying that nature is, “the universe, with all its phenomena”, is clearly the better out of the two definitions.
Nature inspires a certain feeling that a person gets while they’re walking through the forest at dawn. It gives them a sense of wonder, and childlike curiosity as they peer at their surroundings that never ceases to stop changing[CC2] . There is very little to none in the great outdoors that will remain permanent. It’s true that it may take thousands of years for something on the larger scale, such as landscape, to shift noticeably, but it’s still change. No leaf, will remain in the same spot for an extended period of time, unless it is somehow found to be crushed in rock. Even then it’s form of matter will decompose and change its composition with the shifting of the earth beneath and above it. The concept of change is a part of nature.
When pondering the question of what exactly nature is[CC3] , there was always a certain image lingering in the back of my mind. It’s a romantic picture of a lush, green forest right at the peak of full bloom. I see a large buck in the corner of my mind halfway hidden, blending in behind the trunks of trees. The undergrowth is healthy and diverse, remaining unaffected by invasive species.[CC4] On a more personal level, nature is defined as a place of preserved beauty.
, nature has a broad definition, that can only truly be defined through personal opinion and experience. The image one person has of nature in their mind, could be very different from another’s[CC5] .
[CC1]Humans and animals move though [CC2]I really love this part because you paint a picture for the reader rather than explain nature. [CC3]What first attracted you to nature? You have a great passion for the outdoors, it may be beneficial to explain when you first fell in love with nature. [CC4]Love this line [CC5]Here you open up a whole different aspect. The difference of opinion.
Rough Draft Definition (posted RHS February 3 -- 171 February 5)
Sources-Dictionary.com, Personal opinion, personal experiences, nature.org, and wikipedia
Alexandra Lidgett 27 January 2012Mr. JohnsonBlock 1 Definition Paper
Nature is a concept, so broad and vague, that it really comes down to personal opinion and experience. Nature is defined in so many different ways, it becomes a word that
The term ‘Nature’ is defined by dictionary.com as, “the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization”. Yet I have to disagree and say it truly is anything still residing in its untainted state. Why can’t humans be a part of nature also? Are we not animals ourselves? There are a large number of people who would like to disagree with that and argue that humans are not animals. I would ask them if they ever took a biology class in high school. Humans can be one with nature, as long as they respect it. Therefore, the second definition found on dictionary.com saying that nature is, “the universe, with all its phenomena”, is clearly the better out of the two definitions.
Nature inspires a certain feeling that a person gets while they’re walking through the forest at dawn. It gives them a sense of wonder, and childlike curiosity as they peer at their surroundings that never ceases to stop changing. There is very little to none in the great outdoors that will remain permanent. It’s true that it may take thousands of years for something on the larger scale, such as landscape, to shift noticeably, but it’s still change. No leaf, will remain in the same spot for an extended period of time, unless it is somehow found to be crushed in rock. Even then it’s form of matter will decompose and change its composition with the shifting of the earth beneath and above it. The concept of change is a part of nature.
When pondering the question of what exactly nature is, there was always a certain image lingering in the back of my mind. It’s a romantic picture of a lush, green forest right at the peak of full bloom. I see a large buck in the corner of my mind halfway hidden, blending in behind the trunks of trees. The undergrowth is healthy and diverse, remaining unaffected by invasive species. On a more personal level, nature is defined as a place of preserved beauty.
In conclusion, nature has a broad definition, that can only truly be defined through personal opinion and experience. The image one person has of nature in their mind, could be very different from another’s. Revision Definition (posted RHS February 10 -- 171 February 12 )
Alexandra Lidgett
10 February 2012
Mr. Johnson
Block 1 Definition Paper
Nature is a concept so broad that it tends to come down to personal opinion and experience. I was conversing with a few friends and the teacher of the Fishery and Wildlife class, and out of curiosity, I asked them to define what nature meant to them. A peer of mine, who details the classic example of homeschooled genius, immediately began spouting off all these scientific facts about the food webs, ecosystems, and biomes. When he settled down from his brainstorm, my teacher looked at me, and simply said the word, “Everything.” I asked her to elaborate on what she meant, and she described to me how people seem to have the misconception that nature is only the outdoors, and that wildlife stops at your front door. Generally people do not think about the microorganisms that live all around us, everywhere we go, in everyday life. Nature is everywhere.
Dictionary.com defines the term ‘Nature’ as, “The natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization”. Yet I have to disagree and say it truly is anything still residing in its untainted state. Why can’t humans be a part of nature also? Are we not animals ourselves? There are a large number of people who would like to disagree with that and argue that humans are not animals. I would ask them if they ever took a biology class in high school. Humans can be one with nature, as long as they respect it. Therefore, the second definition found on dictionary.com saying that nature is, “The universe, with all its phenomena”, is clearly the better out of the two definitions. Nature inspires a certain feeling that a person experiences while they’re walking through the forest at dawn. It gives them a sense of wonder, and childlike curiosity as they peer at their surroundings that never cease to stop changing. There is very little to none in the great outdoors that will remain permanent. It’s true that it may take thousands of years for something on the larger scale, such as landscape, to shift noticeably, but its still change. No leaf will remain in the same spot for an extended period of time, unless it is somehow found to be crushed in rock. Even then its form of matter will decompose and change its composition with the shifting of the earth beneath and above it. The concept of change is a part of nature. When pondering the question of what exactly nature is, there was always a certain image lingering in the back of my mind. It’s a romantic picture of a lush, green forest right at the peak of full bloom. I see a large buck in the corner of my mind halfway hidden, blending in behind the trunks of trees. The undergrowth is healthy and diverse, remaining unaffected by invasive species. On a more personal level, nature is defined as a place of preserved beauty.
In conclusion, nature has a broad definition that can only truly be defined through personal opinion and experience. Nature is everywhere; a forever changing, beautiful phenomena. The image one person has of nature in their mind, could be very different from another’s.
Nature is a concept so broad that it tends to come down to personal opinion and experience. I was conversing with a few friends and the teacher of the Fishery and Wildlife class, and out of curiosity, I asked them to define what nature meant to them. A peer of mine, who details the classic example of homeschooled genius, immediately began spouting off all these scientific facts about the food webs, ecosystems, and biomes. When he settled down from his brainstorm, my teacher looked at me, and simply said the word, “Everything.” I asked her to elaborate on what she meant, and she described to me how people seem to have the misconception that nature is only the outdoors, and that wildlife stops at your front door. Generally people do not think about the microorganisms [CC1] that live all around us, everywhere we go, in everyday life. Nature is everywhere.
Dictionary.com defines the term ‘Nature’ as, “The natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization”. Yet I have to disagree[CC2] and say it truly is anything still residing in its untainted state. Why can’t humans be a part of nature also? Are we not animals ourselves? There are a large number of people who would like to disagree with that and argue that humans are not animals. I would ask them if they ever took a biology class in high school. Humans can be one with nature, as long as they respect it. Therefore, the second definition found on dictionary.com saying that nature is, “The universe, with all its phenomena”, is clearly the better out of the two definitions.[CC3] Nature inspires a certain feeling that a person experiences while they’re walking through the forest at dawn[CC4] . It gives them a sense of wonder, and childlike curiosity as they peer at their surroundings that never cease to stop changing. There is very little to none in the great outdoors that will remain permanent. It’s true that it may take thousands of years for something on the larger scale, such as landscape, to shift noticeably, but its still change. No leaf will remain in the same spot for an extended period of time, unless it is somehow found to be crushed in rock. Even then its form of matter will decompose and change its composition with the shifting of the earth beneath and above it. The concept of change is a part of nature[CC5] . When pondering the question of what exactly nature is, there was always a certain image lingering in the back of my mind. It’s a romantic picture of a lush, green forest right at the peak of full bloom. I see a large buck in the corner of my mind halfway hidden, blending in behind the trunks of trees. The undergrowth is healthy and diverse, remaining unaffected by invasive species. On a more personal level, nature is defined as a place of preserved beauty[CC6] .
In conclusion[CC7] , nature has a broad definition that can only truly be defined through personal opinion and experience. Nature is everywhere; a forever changing, beautiful phenomena. The image one person has of nature in their mind, could be very different from another’s.
Alex-
I love how far you have come in just a week with this assignment! You picked such a great topic and obviously something you are passionate about. You could do a lot with this definitions assignment and could have a lot of fun with exploration and ideas. So many good ideas, you’re well on your way to a great piece. [CC1]You’re making a very broad statement here for so many people. Could you possibly rationalize this? I think nature is something that is so open to interpretation that we can’t conclude that all people think one thing about it. [CC2]There is a lot of contradiction in this piece, which is great when working with something like nature. I’m concerned that the word disagree may not be the right word. [CC3]Why is this the better of the two? Readers will probably agree with you, but to you, why is this definition more applicable? I love the use of phenomena to describe nature. It makes me think of how big nature really is. [CC4]Cliché experience. [CC5]The notion of change works great with this piece. Could you tie the human nature of change to the idea that even untouched parts of the world are also changing? [CC6]I love this definition. This is a part where readers will really understand your love for nature. It’s a great line and I think you could elaborate more on the meaning to you. As a reader I would like to know how you came to this conclusion, why nature is so spectacular and mesmerizing to you. [CC7]You could do something with a broad ending here. Since nature doesn’t end, maybe you could think of a question or thought to leave readers. Nature is really open and inconclusive. Final Definition (posted RHS February 17 -- 171 February 19 )
Corinne-Loved your feed back! It really helped me to broaden my thinking, and expand my points. I had trouble with your comment [CC6], just because I really have no idea why it is. It's just a feeling of instant love and bliss when I step barefoot onto a patch of grass. I don't neccessarily know how to describe it? mostly because there isnt any concrete reasoning
But I kinda tried to do it anyway. Just to give it a go.
Here's the essay: Nature is a concept so broad that it tends to come down to personal opinion and experience. I was conversing with a few friends and the teacher of the Fishery and Wildlife class, and out of curiosity, I asked them to define what nature meant to them. A peer of mine, who details the classic example of homeschooled genius, immediately began spouting off all these scientific facts about the food webs, ecosystems, and biomes. When he settled down from his brainstorm, my teacher looked at me, and simply said the word, “Everything.” I asked her to elaborate on what she meant, and she described to me how people seem to have the misconception that nature is only the outdoors, and that wildlife stops at your front door. Generally people do not think about the microorganisms [CC1] that live all around us, everywhere we go, in everyday life. After a while of thought, I realized that even our mouth itself is really an entire ecosystem. Combine protozoa, bacteria, and fungi all eating off of the food you eat, and Voila!I think this is a really fun example that demonstrates nature is everywhere. Gross, but so true! You have yourself an ecosystem[1]. Nature is literally, everywhere.
Dictionary.com defines the term ‘Nature’ as, “The natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization/"I wonder why the dentition of nature excludes humans. You make it clear you disagree, but why do you think humans are excluded? Yet I would like you to take a second look, and decide if nature truly could be anything still residing in its untainted state. Why can’t humans be a part of nature also? Are we not animals ourselves? There are a large number of people who would like to disagree with that and argue that humans are not animals. I would ask them if they ever took a biology classWhat did you learn about humans and nature in that class?in high school. Humans can be one with nature, as long as they respect it. Therefore, the second definition found on dictionary.com saying that nature is, “The universe, with all its phenomena”,I still love this definition and how you molded your essay to prove this. is clearly the better out of the two definitions because it leaves space for humans, to be one with mother nature.
Nature inspires a certain feeling that a person experiences while they’re walking through the forest at dawn. This is a classic image of human nature. Have you thought about deserts or mountains? It gives them a sense of wonder, and childlike curiosity as they peer at their surroundings that never cease to stop changing. There is very little to none in the great outdoors that will remain permanent. It’s true that it may take thousands of years for something on the larger scale, such as landscape, to shift noticeably, but it’s still change. No leaf will remain in the same spot for an extended period of time, unless it is somehow found to be crushed in rock. Even then its form of matter will decompose and change its composition with the shifting of the earth beneath and above it. The concept of change is a part of nature.
When pondering the question of what exactly nature is, there was always a certain image lingering in the back of my mind. It’s a romantic picture of a lush, green forest right at the peak of full bloom. I see a large buck in the corner of my mind halfway hidden, blending in behind the trunks of trees. The undergrowth is healthy and diverse, remaining unaffected by invasive species. On a more personal level, nature includes being surrounded by nothing but perfection. It instills a feeling of total awe, at something so incredibly powerful. It is defined as a place of preserved beauty.
In conclusion, nature has a broad definition that can only truly be defined through personal opinion and experiencePerfect. Nature is everywhere; a forever changing, beautiful phenomena. The image one person has of nature in their mind, could be very different from another’s. Maybe after the world ends, the concept of excluding humans from nature will no longer be a problem.I love this part, it leaves readers with a question to ponder and leaves the idea of nature open to interpretation.
Good work! You have accomplished a lot in this essay. You express how passionate you are about nature and how it is truly an individual experience for us all. I hope you continue with this piece. I know when we met you explained how much you love the outdoors and I think this is such a great essay for you to carry throughout your life. Though I would never tell you to throw out a piece of writing, I think this piece really lets readers learn a bit about you and this passion of yours.
I'm really enjoying writing this semester, which is a first for me, because I'm able to write about an issue that I'm passionate about. I stuggled as I always seem to with forming ideas to write about, and i think I became better at expanding the ones i had as I went along.
I'm glad you are enjoying writing. Sometimes the hardest part of writing is just coming up with an idea! Rough Draft Comparison (posted RHS February 24 -- 171 February 26 )
The two concept of Nature, verses civilization are two concepts that are seemingly polar oppositesAre they? We couldn't have civilization without nature in the first place, I know you explain this later on, but as a reader I didn't have that initial thought, but are actually often interlinked more often than a person would assume.
Civilization is a concept where in terms of the age of the earth, it is something so new that it has hardly even begun. Scientists have roughly estimated earth to be 4.5 billion years old. The large colonization of man has only been around for a few thousand That is a significant difference, could you explain your reaction on the huge gap between when the world actually started versus humans inhabiting?. It’s as if we are merely a speck of wind in the history of the worldGreat use of imagery here. Nature, however, doesn’t have a beginning. For something to have no beginning, is an idea that completely befuddles any person. But it’s how it is Why is it that way? As a reader I would like an explanation of how you came to this conclusion. Nature expands to include the entire universe, including anything of everything like?. It’s been around long before the sun was even a puff of gas.
An advanced state of human society relies completely on what mother nature can serve it. Food, air, shelter, clothing, all of the basic necessities of what someone needs to survive, originates from something in the natural world. Even the most synthetic of materials, contains components that are separately, completely natural example?. The interesting part of the relationship between the two, is that nature only yields what civilization allows it to. If we go around chopping down all of the hardwood trees people pay the most money to make their furniture out of, and only leave behind the lesser wolf trees, then this creates the terrible cycle of destroying the biodiversity of forestsWhat is the affect of this?. Once it is lost, it will not be regained. That is unless man comes in and plants seedlings to restore the diversity What is the danger in this? Explain why this is detrimental. Forestry selection is a prime example of how nature and civilization are interdependent of one anotherThis section needs to be explained in more depth, I'm not really sure what you mean by this. .
In conclusion, nature and civilization have a relationship consisting of a wide variety of differences, while at the same time are reliant on one another I think a lot more could be said about this sentence. You laid out a problem, but what is your perspective? What are your ideas? How can we stop the destruction?.
It's nice that you are sticking to nature as your topic because you are so passionate about it, but I'm not seeing you in this piece. What are your ideas? How do you feel about big business destroying nature? Can it be stopped? I only know you chose to write about this because I know you like nature, but how can you demonstrate to other reader, who don't know you, why this is such an important topic to you?
Revision Comparison (posted RHS March 2 -- 171 March 4) Nature, verses civilization are two concepts that are seemingly polar opposites through their difference in length of existence, and through what is included in each definition. In actuality, they are interlinked more often than a person would notice on the surface.you never really discuss how the two are linked, only how they are different and how nature is superior to civilization. Civilization is a concept where in terms of the age of the earth, it is something so new that it has hardly even begun. Scientists have roughly estimated earth to be 4.5 billion years old. The large colonization of man has only been around for a few thousanda thousand what?. It’s as if we are merely a speck of wind in the history of the worldworld or universe? you later discuss other galaxies. Nature, however, doesn’t have a beginninghow do you come to this conclusion?. For something to have no beginning, is an idea that completely befuddles any persondoes it befuddle you?. The law of conservation of matter, states that atoms can be neither created nor destroyed. They can only be rearranged to concoct substances. Nature expands to include the entire universe, including anything of everything, from the dirt under your finger nails, to the far off galaxies that have yet to be discovered by any human civilization...(Leaving room for the idea of aliens). It has been around long before the sun was even a puff of gas. I understand your wanting to really drive home what nature is and how far it can expand, however, it becomes a little redundant because it is the only thing discussed in your paper. What do you want to accomplish with this piece? What do you want the reader to take away from your writing? An advanced state of human society relies completely on what mother nature can serve it. Food, air, shelter, clothing, all of the basic necessities of what someone needs to survive, originates from something in the natural world. Even the most synthetic of materials contain components that are separately, completely natural. For example, rayon, which includes sodium, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, potassium, and a few other basic elements all arranged in a certain order.? The interesting part of the relationship between the two, is that nature only yields what civilization allows it to. If we go around chopping down all of the hardwood trees people pay the most money to make their furniture out of, and only leave behind the lesser wolf trees, then this creates the terrible cycle of destroying the biodiversity of forests.The exigency of this, is that it will have harmful effects on the very delicate food web of the particular forests ecosystem. Once it is lost, it will not naturally be regained. The only way the balance could be restored, is if man begins to realize its mistakes, and plants seedlings to restore the diversity. This situation of how forest ecosystems are dependent on the choices of man, is a prime example of how nature and civilization are interdependent of oneanother. I'm not following how you came to this conclusion. Merely broad statements were said. This piece reads as more of an introduction to a bigger piece than something that can stand alone. In conclusion,what are you concluding? Refer to previous comment. nature and civilization have a relationship consisting of a wide variety of differences, while at the same time are reliant on one another. Man, not mother nature, is in charge of deciding which ecosystems are to be destroyed, restored, or kept as they naturally occur. Through education of the needs of different ecosystems to be kept healthy, civilization can be allowed to appropriately take the step towards the preservation of earth. Alex- I appreciate your work, however, you need to push yourself to explain. There was some progression between this draft and your last, but I'm going to ask you for a lot more. Really try to explain each point you make and why you make it. I know you have a lot more to say about nature, go for it. If you are as passionate about nature as you say, it will come out through your writing. The comparison assignment says this essay has a clear purpose. Make sure you're understanding what you want the purpose of this piece to be. For your final draft of this assignment, try making a similarities and differences chart. Try and come up with some very distinct characteristics of the nature and civilization and explain those. This may help you get your thoughts together and better define the two. Good luck!
Final Comparison (posted RHS March 9 -- 171 March 11) Corinne, I really struggled with this piece quite a bit, and improvments were hard to make for me. Any of the questions you asked in the revison piece, I feel as though I answered it in the sentence after your question. For example, when you asked me how I come to the conclusion that Nature had no beginning, I explain to you two sentences later that the Law of conservation of matter states that there is no creation of matter. concluding there is no beginning either. So I did what I could to improve the writing, but I was totally confused on how to do it. And also, I am terribly sorry I missed the drake meeting on Wednesday! I hate to have missed the opportunity. But because of my farm class that is located way out on the south side, the bus didnt get me back to roosevelt in time before they left for drake. I wouldve liked hear ing your input in person And Thank you for your help! Yes, I'm sorry we didn't get to meet! What was difficult for you in this assignment? Did you enjoy the subject? What about the assignment, was it engaging enough for you or would you prefer something different? Have you thought about what you are going to write about for your next assignment?
Nature, verses civilization are two concepts that are seemingly polar opposites through their difference in length of existence, and through what is included in each definition. In actuality, they are interlinked more often than a person would notice on the surface. Civilization is a concept where in terms of the age of the earth, it is something so new that it has hardly even begun. Scientists have roughly estimated earth to be 4.5 billion years old. The large colonization of man has only been around for a few thousand years. It’s as if we are merely a speck of wind in the history of theuniverse Good! I better understand the difference between nature and civilization. Nature, however, doesn’t have a beginning. For something to have no beginning, is an idea that completely befuddles any person. Humans have a hard time grasping the fact that in reality, anything we “create” has always been there, just in a different form What do you think about this? Do you have a hard time comprehending that nature doesn't have a beginning?. The law of conservation of matter, states that atoms can be neither created nor destroyed. They can only be rearranged in a different state of matter. Nature expands to include the entire universe, including anything of everything, from the dirt under your finger nails, to the far off galaxies that have yet to be discovered by any human civilization...(Leaving room for the idea of aliens). It has been around long before the sun was even a puff of gas. An advanced state of human society relies completely on what mother nature can serve it. Food, air, shelter, clothing, all of the basic necessities of what someone needs to survive, originates from something in the natural world. Even the most synthetic of materials contain components that are separately, completely natural. For example, Rayon. The interesting part of the relationship between the two, is that nature only yields what civilization allows it toI really like this sentence because it highlights how the two are interlinked. If we go around chopping down all of the hardwood trees people pay the most money to make their furniture out of, and only leave behind the lesser wolf trees, then this creates the terrible cycle of destroying the biodiversity of forests.The exigency of this, is that it will have harmful effects on the very delicate food web of the particular forests ecosystem. Once it is lost, it will not naturally be regained. The only way the balance could be restored, is if man begins to realize its mistakes, and plants seedlings to restore the diversity. This situation of how forest ecosystems are dependent on the positive or negative choices of man, is a prime example of how nature and civilization are interdependent of one another. In conclusion, nature and civilization have a relationship consisting of a wide variety of differences, while at the same time are reliant on one another is nature reliant on civilization?. Man, not mother nature, is in charge of deciding which ecosystems are to be destroyed, restored, or kept as they naturally occur. Through education of the needs of different ecosystems to be kept healthy, civilization can be allowed to appropriately take the step towards the preservation of earth.
Good job, I think this final piece definitely fits the assignment better. I was able to distinguish the similarities and differences between civilization and nature. I would like to see more of you and your opinions. For the next assignment, try and put yourself in your writing more.
Reflection #2 (RHS March 16 -- 171 March 25)
I'm pretty positive that I am having an easier time with using my creativity to think of new, interesting ideas and topics to illustrate in my writings. Having a drake writing buddy has also helped along with that also, by encouraging me to seek a second opinion. Rough Draft Argument (posted RHS April 6 -- 171 April 8)
I don't have any idea where i'm going with this, but I have a feeling that I will continue to enjoy playing the devils advocate on this one.
Earth, is simply another planet. The only difference between its self, and the rest of the known universe, is that it has a more complex ecosystem. This very ecosystem has been able to survive on its own for billions of years. It has adapted to the most extreme of climate changes ranging from the ice age, to a mass shower storm of burning meteorites. Whatever the humans on this planet do to it, life will sustain itself. It will survive. What argument are you making? Are you trying saying that us as humans don't think the earth will be able to sustain itsf, but really it can?
There is little to no point in attempting to “save” any of the animals that are going extinct. So what if there are no more tigers, or large predators? The large predators have down sized in the past from the towering 90 or so ft tall, to our own measly 4 ft tall predators that we have today. Tigers are pretty big! I dont think i would ever call them "measly" what about ocean predators? It may even be beneficial to the human race to no longer have any other beast competing with us for the top apex predator position why do you say this? Aren't all animals important to our ecosystem?. There have been mass extinctions of species of animals in the past, yet life today is just as diverse as it has ever been. Is it diverse outside the human population?
Unless you live in a hole, you are aware that our temperatures change with the seasons every year. I will ask you why it is so tragic that the earth collectively has raised in temperature little over one tiny degree. Why is it a big deal? How does this tie back to your argument that the earth will survive? This pishposh about global warming, is a large piece of bologna stuff stated by Al Gore so that he could gain a better political standing. Back when humans were still cavemen, they were probably happy as could be to see their earth lifting from an icy fortress of tundra, into a planet that has more accessible resources for them to utilize, and expand their populations. It is more so in recent years of advanced technology and communication, that scientist have been recording (most likely for lack of nothing better to do) all of the different temperatures around the world. It’s only since we’ve had factual evidence stating that the climate temperature is rising, that we’ve been alarmed. Before when no one knew, obviously no one cared. And weren’t we all the happier for it? All it is, is one more thing to fuel a panic attack of stereotypical type-A people who worry too much about what they can’t change. You sound almost angry in your last sentence. Is there a different way you can close your piece? Because you ended with more of a hostile tone I felt it was almost not finished.
In conclusion, mother earth, is a big girl, that can handle herself just fine, with or without us.
Hi, if my comments are messy, I've been traveling all weekend and did this off my phone! If something doesn't make sense, just ask me. I really like your topic. How can you construct this as more of an argument? Could you give more examples of how the earth is able to take care of itself? What about people who genuinely care about the environment? You are very passionate about nature, but this makes it sound like you don't believe in what you care for. Maybe you could do something where you explain that people dont have to go to great lengths to help preserve our planet but give small examples of how we can just maintain a healthy earth. Happy Easter!!
Revision Argument (posted RHS April 13 -- 171 April 15)
If you’re the type of person who is a green-living tree hugger, then I think that is absolutely fantastic. No, really, I’m not being sarcastic. I’m actually a nature fanatic myself. It’s important to have a group of individuals out there that fully understand the beauty of nature and what is supplies us. While I like this opener, it contradicts everything you say later in the piece. You explain later that we don't need people freaking out about saving the world, yet you praise them here. What if we didn't have people who cared about the environment? Whether that be food, or that feeling of pure bliss when you survey an awe in spiring landscape. Awkward phrasing. A person who knows, and has experienced that very feeling, is undoubtedly one who would join an advocacy in order to preserve such a sight. Well I’m here to save you from that poor decision. Organizations who are based on “saving the earth” are filled with more garbage then they are with any real substance of worth. Trust me, I’ve been a part of, and have studied more than a few. Instead of saying "Trust me," show me. This kind of takes an assumption that readers know what is wrong with them. Are they corrupt? Go in depth about how they function as an organization. Even the groups that say they dislike propaganda, still do an excellent job of portraying exaggerated stories and examples to get their point across. Or worse, they use it to make a living off of your misplaced, donated dollar. It’s easy to state any old opinion without knowing the facts, but is an opinion with no sound reasoning really worth anything in the long run? I’m here to give you the other side of the story that will lower your blood pressure and anxiety.
Earth, is simply another planet. The only difference between its self, and the rest of the known universe, is that it has a more complex ecosystem. This very ecosystem has been able to survive on its own for billions of years. It has adapted to the most extreme of climate changes ranging from the ice age, to a mass shower storm of burning meteorites. Society is under the incorrect assumption that we need to baby our planet and everything in it. Whatever the humans on this planet do to it, life will sustain itself. It will survive.
There is little to no point in attempting to “save” any of the animals that are going extinct. Are you able to give an example of how an animals extinction would not have an impact on us? What would happen if we lost tigers? So what if there are no more tigers or large predators? The large predators have down sized in the past from the towering 90 or so ft tall, to our own measly 4 ft tall terrestrial predators that we have today. It may even be beneficial to the human race to no longer have any other beast competing with us for the top apex predator position. It is a credible fact that every animal plays a significant role in its specific ecosystem. It is also a legitimate fact that there have been mass extinctions of species of animals in the past, yet life today is just as diverse as it has ever been. How has the ecosystem been affected in the past?
Nature is a pro at rolling with the punches, and adapting to changes in the environment. I recently read an interestingly put article on Yahoo. There was a man who called our earth a “dynamic system,” and by that, he was bringing up the concept of dynamic stability. The brilliant philosopher stated that, “when changes occur, other changes tend to return things back the way they were.” This entails that whatever we do to this planet, it will eventually return to its healthy and thriving state.
Unless you live in a hole, you are aware that our temperatures change with the seasons every year. I will ask you why it is so tragic that the earth collectively has raised in temperature little over one tiny degree. This pishposh about global warming, is a large piece of bologna stuff stated by Al Gore so that he could gain a better political standing. Why do people think it is a big deal? Back when humans were still cavemen, they were probably happy as could be to see their earth lifting from an icy fortress of tundra, into a planet that has more accessible resources for them to utilize, and expand their populations. It is more so in recent years of advanced technology and communication, that scientist have been recording (most likely for lack of nothing better to do) all of the different temperatures around the world. It’s only since we’ve had factual evidence stating that the climate temperature is rising, that we’ve been alarmed. Before when no one knew, obviously no one cared. And weren’t we all the happier for it? All it is, is one more thing to fuel a panic attack of stereotypical type-A people who worry too much about what they can’t change.
In conclusion, mother earth is a big girl that can handle herself just fine, with or without us.
For some reason, I really enjoy closing my piece with a one sentence conclusion. It’s straight and to the point, without toe tapping around the final resolution.
I think it’s interesting that you were able to pick up on my tone. I sounded angry, because I was. I always get myself all worked up about how stupid global warming is.
And I didn’t understand what you were getting at when you asked if it is ‘still diverse outside the human population’?
And p.s, Tigers are on average 3 ft tall. They just seem taller because of their power and muscular body. It's more that they have a large presence. Bears are the 4 ft tall predators that I was referring to. And yeah, if I were going to include length, then ocean predators would be much larger. But then I would be undermining my pointJ
Final Argument (posted RHS April 20 -- 171 April 23) If you’re the type of person who is a green-living tree hugger, then I think that is absolutely fantastic. No, really, I’m not being sarcastic. I’m actually a nature fanatic myself. It’s important to have a group of individuals out there that fully understand the beauty of nature and what it supplies us.Whether that be food, or that feeling of pure bliss when you survey a breath taking landscape. A person who knows, and has experienced that very feeling, is undoubtedly one who would join an advocacy in order to preserve such a sight. Well I’m here to save you from that poor decision. Organizations who are based on “saving the earth” are filled with more garbage then they are with any real substance of worth. Trust me, I’ve been a part of, and have studied more than a few. Even the groups that say they dislike propaganda, still do an excellent job of portraying exaggerated stories and examples to get their point across. Or worse, they use it to make a living off of your misplaced, donated dollar. Can you give a personal account of dealing with these organizations? It’s easy to state any old opinion without knowing the facts, but is an opinion with no sound reasoning really worth anything in the long run? I’m here to give you the other side of the story that will lower both your blood pressure and anxiety.Earth, is simply another planet. The only difference between its self, and the rest of the known universe, is that it has a more complex ecosystem. This very ecosystem has been able to survive on its own for billions of years. It has adapted to the most extreme of climate changes ranging from the ice age, to a mass shower storm of burning meteorites. Society is under the incorrect assumption that we need to baby our planet and everything in it. No matter what the humans on this planet do to it, life will sustain itself. It will survive.There is little to no point in attempting to “save” any of the animals that are going extinct. So what if there are no more tigers or large predators? It is a credible fact that every animal plays a significant role in its specific ecosystem. It is also a legitimate fact that there have been mass extinctions of species of animals in the past, yet life today is just as diverse as it has ever been. The large predators have down sized in the past from the towering 90 or so feet tall carnivorous dinosaurs, to our own measly 4 ft tall terrestrial predators that we have today. It may even be beneficial to the human race to no longer have any other beast competing with us for the top apex predator position. Nature is a pro at rolling with the punches, and adapting to changes in the environment. I recently read an interestingly put article on Yahoo. There was a man who called our earth a “dynamic system,” and by that, he was bringing up the concept of dynamic stability. The brilliant philosopher stated that, “when changes occur, other changes tend to return things back the way they were.” I really like this section, it adds a lot to the argument. Are you able to reflect on it? Did you take anything away from the article that you can reiterate to your readers? This entails that whatever we do to this planet, it will eventually return to its healthy and thriving state. Unless you live in a hole, you are aware that our temperatures change with the seasons every year. I will ask you why it is so tragic that the earth collectively has raised in temperature little over one tiny degree. This pishposh about global warming, is a large piece of bologna stuff stated by Al Gore so that he could gain a better political standing. He has the public all freaked out about the how the ozone is being eaten away by high carbon dioxide levels. Good. I recently read an article from the TCT renewable resource blog that stated, “…the ridiculously oversized charts in “An Inconvenient Truth” clearly demonstrate the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature increase. On the other, MIT climate researchers have demonstrated that carbon dioxide level increases follow temperature increases, not precede it.” This, immediately shows me the frightening large amount of propaganda that has been used against the masses in order to manipulate us. Back when humans were still cavemen, they were probably happy as could be to see their earth lifting from an icy fortress of tundra, into a planet that has more accessible resources for them to utilize, and expand their populations. It is more so in recent years of advanced technology and communication, that scientist have been recording (most likely for lack of nothing better to do) all of the different temperatures around the world. It’s only since we’ve had factual evidence stating that the climate temperature is rising, that we’ve been alarmed. Before when no one knew, obviously no one cared. And weren’t we all the happier for it? All it is, is one more thing to fuel a panic attack of stereotypical type-A people who worry too much about what they can’t change.In conclusion, mother earth is a big girl that can handle herself just fine, with or without us. Side note: you said, “While I like this opener, it contradicts everything you say later in the piece. You explain later that we don't need people freaking out about saving the world, yet you praise them here. What if we didn't have people who cared about the environment?” Well I would like to bring to your attention that I said nothing about how I liked people who were trying to save the earth. I stated that I appreciate those who understand its value and beauty. If your reader is confused, don't you think you should try and clarify?
Reflection #3 (posted RHS April 23) The reflection for the most recent essay is essentially the same as the past few, because the writing buddy consistantly helped to improve my writing pieces. In the essay it was beneficial to have another perspective to help with determining how the audience would react to the arguement. She made me think a little deeper about each of the claims that I made, so that I could develop them further.
Ever since I was a small child, I have felt as though my life has been centered around the outdoors. It’s something simple that has always come naturally what about nature is coming natural to you? to me. My memories of preschool consist of nothing but the one time a visitor brought an owl what was your reaction to the owl? to the classroom, and when we would go on hikes through the woods. Most likely, this was because that was all I had paid any attention to. When I need to calm down, relieve stress you can cut all three words down to one. When you are describing and trying to paint a picture for your readers, make sure you’re not using different variations of the same word. One word will do. or just let my mind wander in any direction it needed to, I would go on a trail near and around my neighborhood by yourself? In preschool?. I know every single square inch of the Bill Ryle Riley? trails, to the point that I can direct you away from giant mud holes, (or towards if your any fun), or take you to teepees and sites a homeless man used to occupy Instead of telling us what you can showing us what you can do on the trails, show us. I can even show you my favorite log. It’s just off the path, comfy enough to sit on, and hollow enough to crawl inside. If there’s ever a time I’m not able to leave the house, say maybe if it’s too dark, then even the simple act of reading and learning about the environment around me would lift any foul mood I had set myself into I’m not sure how this relates to the rest of the essay. It was through my reading, and my urge to surround myself with anyone with similar interests, that I learned what sort of peril the ecosystem of the world is in.
Last year, I went on a white water rafting trip to Utah, through a program called Outward Bound. Before I had gone, I had viewed it as my test. It was my test to see if I could handle or enjoy living in the great outdoors for extended periods of time, because that is precisely what my life dream consists of. To my own jubilation consider word choice, I LOVED it! I felt so free what made you feel free?, I even climbed a huge tree that must have been 150 years old, and took a nap on a branch wide enough for me to stretch out on without fear What were you feeling? Try to explain to readers what these experiences were like. It will be easier to connect and understand your love for the outdoors if you take a stab at trying.. My everyday sights and sounds were so full of beauty, there were times I couldn’t decide whether I wanted cry, or just sit there with a big stupid grin consisting of childlike wonder on my face. The stars were so breath taking, that I almost feel remorse at not being able to find the words to be able to have you feel as I did, as I gazed up at the sky that looked as if a dark pool were jammed full of floating diamonds, paused mid-swirl. The coercion of the river acted as though its main goal was to buck us off the raft, and to present us with a never-ending course of obstacles. Every day was a new challenge that’s how most days are that I accepted whole heartedly passive vs. active voice. It was as if it was, wasn’t it? every bend and turn of the river was a total mystery. I felt a driving need to paddle that much faster, to make the discovery of finding out just what it was that lay ahead. But, it might’ve been that I was the only one who was wondering. How did the water feel splashing against your face? What muscles did you use to paddle? Who were you with? Were you nervous? The guides had a map detailing every rock, pebble, and crevice we could possibly pass on our trek down the river. Not much mystery to be found there… or possibly anywhere in America this sentence is opening up a new can of worms without further description.
Ever since I have become educated on the problems of the environment what problems?, I’ve been feeling this overwhelming sense of confusion and frustration pointed towards the inquest of how mankind could be so incredibly ignorant and stupid how are you fighting it?. All the way through the 1900 century, even the experts thought wildlife and game was an abundant never ending resource that could never be depleted. They couldn’t have been more wrong. In the early 1900’s even extremely abundant animals such as the white tailed deer were expected to go extinct ?. The positive effect of this, if you could consider it that, is that it was a slap in the face for Americans. Conservation Acts were set into place, which are still in effect even today, making a difference towards helping wildlife rightfully take back what once was theirs.
The main question I have doing a tap dance on my brain(cute) , is how are we going to stop the seemingly inevitable train wreck of the total loss of nature? Is it possible, for humans to stop going against the powerful force of nature, and join it? Is there any mystery left to be felt, as the settlers once felt on their quest across their newly discovered world?
Alex-
You have a good start here. It was personal enough to where I felt like I could really connect and understand the author. You have a good use of language. Some things to work on and discuss over the semester may be having a clearer goal and main idea for your piece. I was not really able to pinpoint what readers were supposed to take away from the piece.
Hey Alex!
I can tell we are going to get along well from your letter. I, like you, am very girly, outdoorsy, and a republican. Here are some other defining characteristics:
You can also go to my website, coriclark.com to see some of my blog and other stuff. I’m looking forward to working with you.
Happy weekend =]
Letter of Introduction (posted January 20)
Alexandra J. Lidgett
18 January 2012
Mr. Johnson
Block 1
Your New Best Friend
I was told to write an essay, all about myself. At first I thought, “Well hey; all I do is talk about myself anyway. This should be a piece of cake.” But then all my brainstorming ideas were essentially a large compilation of random facts with little correlation to one another. That’s not what makes an essay. So I decided to describe the three main parts of myself that make up the bipolar person I am. The first being I’m a stud, the second, a beauty queen, and the third, which describes everything the first two don’t, is my astrology sign Pisces.
The word “stud” is defined as a male animal, such as a stallion, that is kept for breeding. Well, I’m a female, and not planning on breeding anytime soon. But unfortunately, the Urbandictionary.com definition includes some choice words that seem to demand a certain level of companionship between us before I can use them in front of you. So we’re left with me being a stallion. By this, I mean I’m an animal. I’d rather be outside all day every day, then inside. The indoors makes me feel claustrophobic, and maybe a little uneasy. I’m one of those nature freaks who want to be a zoologist and a major wildlife conservationist. Yet, I’m a Republican. But that’s off topic. The point is I love fishing, wearing camouflage hats, and I’m working on my hunting license. Anything and everything that has to do with the outdoors, I’m involved in. That includes farm work. I take an animal science agriculture class, and we run a large greenhouse and a barn full of animals. I also happen to be the President of the FFA (Future Farmers of America). However, this is only one third, of what makes up who I am.
On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I love fashion and dressing to the nine’s. I have long, blonde hair that I honestly enjoy spending an hour and a half of my time each day curling and giving it some Texas height (I completely refuse to wear Bump-Its). I consider it my meditation time. I’m a huge fan of bargain shopping, including going to places like the Bargain Bin and Goodwill, so I am not ashamed to brag about having two overflowing closets. Shopping for jaw-dropping clothes is one of my obsessions, or rather, hobbies. If I could be covered in the color gold, sparkles, shimmer, and rhinestones, and have it be practical, I would be. Gaudy, trendy clothing is right up my alley of pure happiness.
How I dress and what I do, don’t necessarily describe my personality. I’m sure you’ve picked up some tidbits by now, but maybe not the deeper stuff that comes from spending time with someone. My zodiac sign, Pisces, does an alright job with describing the type of person I’ve shaped up to be. Though my astrology sign is very wrong, in saying I’m supposed to be shy. I am completely comfortable with, and enjoy this thing our generation seems to have forgotten. It’s the idea of companionable silence. I view "small talk" as the anti-Christ. I’ll occasionally partake in it, just to make a stranger feel comfortable in a new environment, but that’s about it. Talking is meant to make you happy, promote a hearty belly laugh, or learn some sort of interesting information. Meaningless gibber-gabber that won’t mean anything the next day drives me up the wall. I’m not an introvert, I’m just relaxed. I would however agree with the statement saying that I’m loyal. Once you’re in my heart, I’ll keep you there forever. It’s kinda cheesy, but true. The Pisces characteristic page I found on Google, would also tell you that I’m imaginative, and a bit spacey. It’ll tell you that a Pisces needs her friends to help ground her. Well all of my friends know by now, that grounding isn’t necessary. I’m up in the clouds in my perfect dreamland. What isn’t yet a reality will be. That’s my mindset, and they’re well aware that I can make it happen. I’m stubborn that way.
In conclusion, I’m an animal, a diva, and a Pisces. I hope I made this somewhat enjoyable for you to read, because I’m planning on having our working together be a fun time, instead of some boring school assignment we’re forced to work through. Through my writing, you have probably noticed that I use a heavy amount of colloquialism. This may be one of the problems we need to work through during our time together. In any case, it was a pleasure to meet you!
Personal Reflection on Topic of Inquiry(posted RHS January 27 -- 171 January 29)
Alexandra Lidgett
27 January 2012
Mr. Johnson
Block 1
The Big Question
Ever since I was a small child, I have felt as though my life has been centered around the outdoors. It’s something simple that has always come naturally to me. My memories of preschool consist of nothing but the one time a visitor brought an owl to the classroom, and when we would go on hikes through the woods. Most likely, this was because that was all I had paid any attention to. When I need to calm down, relieve stress, or just let my mind wander in any direction it needed to, I would go on a trail near and around my neighborhood. I know every single square inch of the Bill Ryle trails, to the point that I can direct you away from giant mud holes, (or towards if your any fun), or take you to teepees and sites a homeless man used to occupy. I can even show you my favorite log. It’s just off the path, comfy enough to sit on, and hollow enough to crawl inside. If there’s ever a time I’m not able to leave the house, say maybe if it’s too dark, then even the simple act of reading and learning about the environment around me would lift any foul mood I had set myself into. It was through my reading, and my urge to surround myself with anyone with similar interests, that I learned what sort of peril the ecosystem of the world is in.
Last year, I went on a white water rafting trip in Utah, through a program called Outward Bound. Before I had gone, I had viewed it as my test. It was my test to see if I could handle or enjoy living in the great outdoors for extended periods of time, because that is precisely what my life dream consists of. To my own jubilation, I LOVED it! I felt so free, I even climbed a huge tree that must have been 150 years old, and took a nap on a branch wide enough for me to stretch out on without fear. My everyday sights and sounds were so full of beauty, there were times I couldn’t decide whether I wanted cry, or just sit there with a big stupid grin consisting of childlike wonder on my face. The stars were so breath taking, that I almost feel remorse at not being able to find the words to be able to have you feel as I did, as I gazed up at the sky that looked as if a dark pool were jammed full of floating diamonds, paused mid-swirl. The coercion of the river acted as though its main goal was to buck us off the raft, and to present us with a never ending course of obstacles. Every day was a new challenge that I accepted whole heartedly. It was as if every bend and turn of the river was a total mystery. I felt a driving need to paddle that much faster, to make the discovery of finding out just what it was that lay ahead. But, it might’ve been that I was the only one who was wondering. The guides had a map detailing every rock, pebble, and crevice we could possibly pass on our trek down the river. Not much mystery to be found there… or possibly anywhere in America.
Ever since I have become educated on the problems of the environment, I’ve been feeling this overwhelming sense of confusion and frustration pointed towards the inquest of how mankind could be so incredibly ignorant and stupid. All the way through the 1900 century, even the experts thought wildlife and game was an abundant never ending resource that could never be depleted. They couldn’t have been more wrong. In the early 1900’s even extremely abundant animals such as the white tailed deer were expected to go extinct. The positive effect of this, if you could consider it that, is that it was a slap in the face for Americans. Conservation Acts were set into place, which are still in effect even today, making a difference towards helping wildlife rightfully take back what once was theirs.
The main question I have doing a tap dance on my brain, is how are we going to stop the seemingly inevitable train wreck of the total loss of nature? Is it possible, for humans to stop going against the powerful force of nature, and join it? Is there any mystery left to be felt, as the settlers once felt on their quest across their newly discovered world?
Definition Paper
Nature is a concept, so broad and vague, that it really comes down to personal opinion and experience. Nature is defined in so many different ways, it becomes a word that
The term ‘Nature’ is defined by dictionary.com as, “the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization”. Yet I have to disagree and say it truly is anything still residing in its untainted[CC1] state. Why can’t humans be a part of nature also? Are we not animals ourselves? There are a large number of people who would like to disagree with that and argue that humans are not animals. I would ask them if they ever took a biology class in high school. Humans can be one with nature, as long as they respect it. Therefore, the second definition found on dictionary.com saying that nature is, “the universe, with all its phenomena”, is clearly the better out of the two definitions.
Nature inspires a certain feeling that a person gets while they’re walking through the forest at dawn. It gives them a sense of wonder, and childlike curiosity as they peer at their surroundings that never ceases to stop changing[CC2] . There is very little to none in the great outdoors that will remain permanent. It’s true that it may take thousands of years for something on the larger scale, such as landscape, to shift noticeably, but it’s still change. No leaf, will remain in the same spot for an extended period of time, unless it is somehow found to be crushed in rock. Even then it’s form of matter will decompose and change its composition with the shifting of the earth beneath and above it. The concept of change is a part of nature.
When pondering the question of what exactly nature is[CC3] , there was always a certain image lingering in the back of my mind. It’s a romantic picture of a lush, green forest right at the peak of full bloom. I see a large buck in the corner of my mind halfway hidden, blending in behind the trunks of trees. The undergrowth is healthy and diverse, remaining unaffected by invasive species.[CC4] On a more personal level, nature is defined as a place of preserved beauty.
, nature has a broad definition, that can only truly be defined through personal opinion and experience. The image one person has of nature in their mind, could be very different from another’s[CC5] .
[CC1]Humans and animals move though
[CC2]I really love this part because you paint a picture for the reader rather than explain nature.
[CC3]What first attracted you to nature? You have a great passion for the outdoors, it may be beneficial to explain when you first fell in love with nature.
[CC4]Love this line
[CC5]Here you open up a whole different aspect. The difference of opinion.
Rough Draft Definition (posted RHS February 3 -- 171 February 5)
Sources-Dictionary.com, Personal opinion, personal experiences, nature.org, and wikipedia
Alexandra Lidgett
27 January 2012Mr. JohnsonBlock 1
Definition Paper
Nature is a concept, so broad and vague, that it really comes down to personal opinion and experience. Nature is defined in so many different ways, it becomes a word that
The term ‘Nature’ is defined by dictionary.com as, “the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization”. Yet I have to disagree and say it truly is anything still residing in its untainted state. Why can’t humans be a part of nature also? Are we not animals ourselves? There are a large number of people who would like to disagree with that and argue that humans are not animals. I would ask them if they ever took a biology class in high school. Humans can be one with nature, as long as they respect it. Therefore, the second definition found on dictionary.com saying that nature is, “the universe, with all its phenomena”, is clearly the better out of the two definitions.
Nature inspires a certain feeling that a person gets while they’re walking through the forest at dawn. It gives them a sense of wonder, and childlike curiosity as they peer at their surroundings that never ceases to stop changing. There is very little to none in the great outdoors that will remain permanent. It’s true that it may take thousands of years for something on the larger scale, such as landscape, to shift noticeably, but it’s still change. No leaf, will remain in the same spot for an extended period of time, unless it is somehow found to be crushed in rock. Even then it’s form of matter will decompose and change its composition with the shifting of the earth beneath and above it. The concept of change is a part of nature.
When pondering the question of what exactly nature is, there was always a certain image lingering in the back of my mind. It’s a romantic picture of a lush, green forest right at the peak of full bloom. I see a large buck in the corner of my mind halfway hidden, blending in behind the trunks of trees. The undergrowth is healthy and diverse, remaining unaffected by invasive species. On a more personal level, nature is defined as a place of preserved beauty.
In conclusion, nature has a broad definition, that can only truly be defined through personal opinion and experience. The image one person has of nature in their mind, could be very different from another’s.
Revision Definition (posted RHS February 10 -- 171 February 12 )
Alexandra Lidgett
10 February 2012
Mr. Johnson
Block 1
Definition Paper
Nature is a concept so broad that it tends to come down to personal opinion and experience. I was conversing with a few friends and the teacher of the Fishery and Wildlife class, and out of curiosity, I asked them to define what nature meant to them. A peer of mine, who details the classic example of homeschooled genius, immediately began spouting off all these scientific facts about the food webs, ecosystems, and biomes. When he settled down from his brainstorm, my teacher looked at me, and simply said the word, “Everything.” I asked her to elaborate on what she meant, and she described to me how people seem to have the misconception that nature is only the outdoors, and that wildlife stops at your front door. Generally people do not think about the microorganisms that live all around us, everywhere we go, in everyday life. Nature is everywhere.
Dictionary.com defines the term ‘Nature’ as, “The natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization”. Yet I have to disagree and say it truly is anything still residing in its untainted state. Why can’t humans be a part of nature also? Are we not animals ourselves? There are a large number of people who would like to disagree with that and argue that humans are not animals. I would ask them if they ever took a biology class in high school. Humans can be one with nature, as long as they respect it. Therefore, the second definition found on dictionary.com saying that nature is, “The universe, with all its phenomena”, is clearly the better out of the two definitions. Nature inspires a certain feeling that a person experiences while they’re walking through the forest at dawn. It gives them a sense of wonder, and childlike curiosity as they peer at their surroundings that never cease to stop changing. There is very little to none in the great outdoors that will remain permanent. It’s true that it may take thousands of years for something on the larger scale, such as landscape, to shift noticeably, but its still change. No leaf will remain in the same spot for an extended period of time, unless it is somehow found to be crushed in rock. Even then its form of matter will decompose and change its composition with the shifting of the earth beneath and above it. The concept of change is a part of nature. When pondering the question of what exactly nature is, there was always a certain image lingering in the back of my mind. It’s a romantic picture of a lush, green forest right at the peak of full bloom. I see a large buck in the corner of my mind halfway hidden, blending in behind the trunks of trees. The undergrowth is healthy and diverse, remaining unaffected by invasive species. On a more personal level, nature is defined as a place of preserved beauty.
In conclusion, nature has a broad definition that can only truly be defined through personal opinion and experience. Nature is everywhere; a forever changing, beautiful phenomena. The image one person has of nature in their mind, could be very different from another’s.
Nature is a concept so broad that it tends to come down to personal opinion and experience. I was conversing with a few friends and the teacher of the Fishery and Wildlife class, and out of curiosity, I asked them to define what nature meant to them. A peer of mine, who details the classic example of homeschooled genius, immediately began spouting off all these scientific facts about the food webs, ecosystems, and biomes. When he settled down from his brainstorm, my teacher looked at me, and simply said the word, “Everything.” I asked her to elaborate on what she meant, and she described to me how people seem to have the misconception that nature is only the outdoors, and that wildlife stops at your front door. Generally people do not think about the microorganisms [CC1] that live all around us, everywhere we go, in everyday life. Nature is everywhere.
Dictionary.com defines the term ‘Nature’ as, “The natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization”. Yet I have to disagree[CC2] and say it truly is anything still residing in its untainted state. Why can’t humans be a part of nature also? Are we not animals ourselves? There are a large number of people who would like to disagree with that and argue that humans are not animals. I would ask them if they ever took a biology class in high school. Humans can be one with nature, as long as they respect it. Therefore, the second definition found on dictionary.com saying that nature is, “The universe, with all its phenomena”, is clearly the better out of the two definitions.[CC3] Nature inspires a certain feeling that a person experiences while they’re walking through the forest at dawn[CC4] . It gives them a sense of wonder, and childlike curiosity as they peer at their surroundings that never cease to stop changing. There is very little to none in the great outdoors that will remain permanent. It’s true that it may take thousands of years for something on the larger scale, such as landscape, to shift noticeably, but its still change. No leaf will remain in the same spot for an extended period of time, unless it is somehow found to be crushed in rock. Even then its form of matter will decompose and change its composition with the shifting of the earth beneath and above it. The concept of change is a part of nature[CC5] . When pondering the question of what exactly nature is, there was always a certain image lingering in the back of my mind. It’s a romantic picture of a lush, green forest right at the peak of full bloom. I see a large buck in the corner of my mind halfway hidden, blending in behind the trunks of trees. The undergrowth is healthy and diverse, remaining unaffected by invasive species. On a more personal level, nature is defined as a place of preserved beauty[CC6] .
In conclusion[CC7] , nature has a broad definition that can only truly be defined through personal opinion and experience. Nature is everywhere; a forever changing, beautiful phenomena. The image one person has of nature in their mind, could be very different from another’s.
Alex-
I love how far you have come in just a week with this assignment! You picked such a great topic and obviously something you are passionate about. You could do a lot with this definitions assignment and could have a lot of fun with exploration and ideas. So many good ideas, you’re well on your way to a great piece.
[CC1]You’re making a very broad statement here for so many people. Could you possibly rationalize this? I think nature is something that is so open to interpretation that we can’t conclude that all people think one thing about it.
[CC2]There is a lot of contradiction in this piece, which is great when working with something like nature. I’m concerned that the word disagree may not be the right word.
[CC3]Why is this the better of the two? Readers will probably agree with you, but to you, why is this definition more applicable? I love the use of phenomena to describe nature. It makes me think of how big nature really is.
[CC4]Cliché experience.
[CC5]The notion of change works great with this piece. Could you tie the human nature of change to the idea that even untouched parts of the world are also changing?
[CC6]I love this definition. This is a part where readers will really understand your love for nature. It’s a great line and I think you could elaborate more on the meaning to you. As a reader I would like to know how you came to this conclusion, why nature is so spectacular and mesmerizing to you.
[CC7]You could do something with a broad ending here. Since nature doesn’t end, maybe you could think of a question or thought to leave readers. Nature is really open and inconclusive.
Final Definition (posted RHS February 17 -- 171 February 19 )
Corinne-Loved your feed back! It really helped me to broaden my thinking, and expand my points. I had trouble with your comment [CC6], just because I really have no idea why it is. It's just a feeling of instant love and bliss when I step barefoot onto a patch of grass. I don't neccessarily know how to describe it? mostly because there isnt any concrete reasoning
But I kinda tried to do it anyway. Just to give it a go.
Here's the essay:
Nature is a concept so broad that it tends to come down to personal opinion and experience. I was conversing with a few friends and the teacher of the Fishery and Wildlife class, and out of curiosity, I asked them to define what nature meant to them. A peer of mine, who details the classic example of homeschooled genius, immediately began spouting off all these scientific facts about the food webs, ecosystems, and biomes. When he settled down from his brainstorm, my teacher looked at me, and simply said the word, “Everything.” I asked her to elaborate on what she meant, and she described to me how people seem to have the misconception that nature is only the outdoors, and that wildlife stops at your front door. Generally people do not think about the microorganisms [CC1] that live all around us, everywhere we go, in everyday life. After a while of thought, I realized that even our mouth itself is really an entire ecosystem. Combine protozoa, bacteria, and fungi all eating off of the food you eat, and Voila! I think this is a really fun example that demonstrates nature is everywhere. Gross, but so true!
You have yourself an ecosystem[1]. Nature is literally, everywhere.
Dictionary.com defines the term ‘Nature’ as, “The natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization/" I wonder why the dentition of nature excludes humans. You make it clear you disagree, but why do you think humans are excluded? Yet I would like you to take a second look, and decide if nature truly could be anything still residing in its untainted state. Why can’t humans be a part of nature also? Are we not animals ourselves? There are a large number of people who would like to disagree with that and argue that humans are not animals. I would ask them if they ever took a biology class What did you learn about humans and nature in that class? in high school. Humans can be one with nature, as long as they respect it. Therefore, the second definition found on dictionary.com saying that nature is, “The universe, with all its phenomena”,I still love this definition and how you molded your essay to prove this.
is clearly the better out of the two definitions because it leaves space for humans, to be one with mother nature.
Nature inspires a certain feeling that a person experiences while they’re walking through the forest at dawn. This is a classic image of human nature. Have you thought about deserts or mountains? It gives them a sense of wonder, and childlike curiosity as they peer at their surroundings that never cease to stop changing. There is very little to none in the great outdoors that will remain permanent. It’s true that it may take thousands of years for something on the larger scale, such as landscape, to shift noticeably, but it’s still change. No leaf will remain in the same spot for an extended period of time, unless it is somehow found to be crushed in rock. Even then its form of matter will decompose and change its composition with the shifting of the earth beneath and above it. The concept of change is a part of nature.
When pondering the question of what exactly nature is, there was always a certain image lingering in the back of my mind. It’s a romantic picture of a lush, green forest right at the peak of full bloom. I see a large buck in the corner of my mind halfway hidden, blending in behind the trunks of trees. The undergrowth is healthy and diverse, remaining unaffected by invasive species. On a more personal level, nature includes being surrounded by nothing but perfection. It instills a feeling of total awe, at something so incredibly powerful. It is defined as a place of preserved beauty.
In conclusion, nature has a broad definition that can only truly be defined through personal opinion and experience Perfect. Nature is everywhere; a forever changing, beautiful phenomena. The image one person has of nature in their mind, could be very different from another’s. Maybe after the world ends, the concept of excluding humans from nature will no longer be a problem. I love this part, it leaves readers with a question to ponder and leaves the idea of nature open to interpretation.
Good work! You have accomplished a lot in this essay. You express how passionate you are about nature and how it is truly an individual experience for us all. I hope you continue with this piece. I know when we met you explained how much you love the outdoors and I think this is such a great essay for you to carry throughout your life. Though I would never tell you to throw out a piece of writing, I think this piece really lets readers learn a bit about you and this passion of yours.
[1] http://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/i-spy-ecosystem
Reflection #1 (posted RHS February 20 -- 171 February 22)
I'm really enjoying writing this semester, which is a first for me, because I'm able to write about an issue that I'm passionate about. I stuggled as I always seem to with forming ideas to write about, and i think I became better at expanding the ones i had as I went along.
I'm glad you are enjoying writing. Sometimes the hardest part of writing is just coming up with an idea!
Rough Draft Comparison (posted RHS February 24 -- 171 February 26 )
The two concept of Nature, verses civilization are two concepts that are seemingly polar opposites Are they? We couldn't have civilization without nature in the first place, I know you explain this later on, but as a reader I didn't have that initial thought, but are actually often interlinked more often than a person would assume.
Civilization is a concept where in terms of the age of the earth, it is something so new that it has hardly even begun. Scientists have roughly estimated earth to be 4.5 billion years old. The large colonization of man has only been around for a few thousand That is a significant difference, could you explain your reaction on the huge gap between when the world actually started versus humans inhabiting?. It’s as if we are merely a speck of wind in the history of the world Great use of imagery here. Nature, however, doesn’t have a beginning. For something to have no beginning, is an idea that completely befuddles any person. But it’s how it is Why is it that way? As a reader I would like an explanation of how you came to this conclusion. Nature expands to include the entire universe, including anything of everything like?. It’s been around long before the sun was even a puff of gas.
An advanced state of human society relies completely on what mother nature can serve it. Food, air, shelter, clothing, all of the basic necessities of what someone needs to survive, originates from something in the natural world. Even the most synthetic of materials, contains components that are separately, completely natural example?. The interesting part of the relationship between the two, is that nature only yields what civilization allows it to. If we go around chopping down all of the hardwood trees people pay the most money to make their furniture out of, and only leave behind the lesser wolf trees, then this creates the terrible cycle of destroying the biodiversity of forests What is the affect of this?. Once it is lost, it will not be regained. That is unless man comes in and plants seedlings to restore the diversity What is the danger in this? Explain why this is detrimental. Forestry selection is a prime example of how nature and civilization are interdependent of one another This section needs to be explained in more depth, I'm not really sure what you mean by this. .
In conclusion, nature and civilization have a relationship consisting of a wide variety of differences, while at the same time are reliant on one another I think a lot more could be said about this sentence. You laid out a problem, but what is your perspective? What are your ideas? How can we stop the destruction?.
It's nice that you are sticking to nature as your topic because you are so passionate about it, but I'm not seeing you in this piece. What are your ideas? How do you feel about big business destroying nature? Can it be stopped? I only know you chose to write about this because I know you like nature, but how can you demonstrate to other reader, who don't know you, why this is such an important topic to you?
Revision Comparison (posted RHS March 2 -- 171 March 4)
Nature, verses civilization are two concepts that are seemingly polar opposites through their difference in length of existence, and through what is included in each definition. In actuality, they are interlinked more often than a person would notice on the surface. you never really discuss how the two are linked, only how they are different and how nature is superior to civilization.
Civilization is a concept where in terms of the age of the earth, it is something so new that it has hardly even begun. Scientists have roughly estimated earth to be 4.5 billion years old. The large colonization of man has only been around for a few thousand a thousand what?. It’s as if we are merely a speck of wind in the history of the world world or universe? you later discuss other galaxies. Nature, however, doesn’t have a beginning how do you come to this conclusion?. For something to have no beginning, is an idea that completely befuddles any person does it befuddle you?. The law of conservation of matter, states that atoms can be neither created nor destroyed. They can only be rearranged to concoct substances. Nature expands to include the entire universe, including anything of everything, from the dirt under your finger nails, to the far off galaxies that have yet to be discovered by any human civilization...(Leaving room for the idea of aliens). It has been around long before the sun was even a puff of gas. I understand your wanting to really drive home what nature is and how far it can expand, however, it becomes a little redundant because it is the only thing discussed in your paper. What do you want to accomplish with this piece? What do you want the reader to take away from your writing?
An advanced state of human society relies completely on what mother nature can serve it. Food, air, shelter, clothing, all of the basic necessities of what someone needs to survive, originates from something in the natural world. Even the most synthetic of materials contain components that are separately, completely natural. For example, rayon, which includes sodium, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, potassium, and a few other basic elements all arranged in a certain order.? The interesting part of the relationship between the two, is that nature only yields what civilization allows it to. If we go around chopping down all of the hardwood trees people pay the most money to make their furniture out of, and only leave behind the lesser wolf trees, then this creates the terrible cycle of destroying the biodiversity of forests.The exigency of this, is that it will have harmful effects on the very delicate food web of the particular forests ecosystem. Once it is lost, it will not naturally be regained. The only way the balance could be restored, is if man begins to realize its mistakes, and plants seedlings to restore the diversity. This situation of how forest ecosystems are dependent on the choices of man, is a prime example of how nature and civilization are interdependent of oneanother. I'm not following how you came to this conclusion. Merely broad statements were said. This piece reads as more of an introduction to a bigger piece than something that can stand alone.
In conclusion,what are you concluding? Refer to previous comment. nature and civilization have a relationship consisting of a wide variety of differences, while at the same time are reliant on one another. Man, not mother nature, is in charge of deciding which ecosystems are to be destroyed, restored, or kept as they naturally occur. Through education of the needs of different ecosystems to be kept healthy, civilization can be allowed to appropriately take the step towards the preservation of earth.
Alex-
I appreciate your work, however, you need to push yourself to explain. There was some progression between this draft and your last, but I'm going to ask you for a lot more. Really try to explain each point you make and why you make it. I know you have a lot more to say about nature, go for it. If you are as passionate about nature as you say, it will come out through your writing. The comparison assignment says this essay has a clear purpose. Make sure you're understanding what you want the purpose of this piece to be. For your final draft of this assignment, try making a similarities and differences chart. Try and come up with some very distinct characteristics of the nature and civilization and explain those. This may help you get your thoughts together and better define the two. Good luck!
Final Comparison (posted RHS March 9 -- 171 March 11)
Corinne, I really struggled with this piece quite a bit, and improvments were hard to make for me. Any of the questions you asked in the revison piece, I feel as though I answered it in the sentence after your question. For example, when you asked me how I come to the conclusion that Nature had no beginning, I explain to you two sentences later that the Law of conservation of matter states that there is no creation of matter. concluding there is no beginning either. So I did what I could to improve the writing, but I was totally confused on how to do it.
And also, I am terribly sorry I missed the drake meeting on Wednesday! I hate to have missed the opportunity. But because of my farm class that is located way out on the south side, the bus didnt get me back to roosevelt in time before they left for drake. I wouldve liked hear ing your input in person
And Thank you for your help!
Yes, I'm sorry we didn't get to meet! What was difficult for you in this assignment? Did you enjoy the subject? What about the assignment, was it engaging enough for you or would you prefer something different? Have you thought about what you are going to write about for your next assignment?
Nature, verses civilization are two concepts that are seemingly polar opposites through their difference in length of existence, and through what is included in each definition. In actuality, they are interlinked more often than a person would notice on the surface.
Civilization is a concept where in terms of the age of the earth, it is something so new that it has hardly even begun. Scientists have roughly estimated earth to be 4.5 billion years old. The large colonization of man has only been around for a few thousand years. It’s as if we are merely a speck of wind in the history of the universe Good! I better understand the difference between nature and civilization. Nature, however, doesn’t have a beginning. For something to have no beginning, is an idea that completely befuddles any person. Humans have a hard time grasping the fact that in reality, anything we “create” has always been there, just in a different form What do you think about this? Do you have a hard time comprehending that nature doesn't have a beginning?. The law of conservation of matter, states that atoms can be neither created nor destroyed. They can only be rearranged in a different state of matter. Nature expands to include the entire universe, including anything of everything, from the dirt under your finger nails, to the far off galaxies that have yet to be discovered by any human civilization...(Leaving room for the idea of aliens). It has been around long before the sun was even a puff of gas.
An advanced state of human society relies completely on what mother nature can serve it. Food, air, shelter, clothing, all of the basic necessities of what someone needs to survive, originates from something in the natural world. Even the most synthetic of materials contain components that are separately, completely natural. For example, Rayon. The interesting part of the relationship between the two, is that nature only yields what civilization allows it to I really like this sentence because it highlights how the two are interlinked. If we go around chopping down all of the hardwood trees people pay the most money to make their furniture out of, and only leave behind the lesser wolf trees, then this creates the terrible cycle of destroying the biodiversity of forests.The exigency of this, is that it will have harmful effects on the very delicate food web of the particular forests ecosystem. Once it is lost, it will not naturally be regained. The only way the balance could be restored, is if man begins to realize its mistakes, and plants seedlings to restore the diversity. This situation of how forest ecosystems are dependent on the positive or negative choices of man, is a prime example of how nature and civilization are interdependent of one another.
In conclusion, nature and civilization have a relationship consisting of a wide variety of differences, while at the same time are reliant on one another is nature reliant on civilization?. Man, not mother nature, is in charge of deciding which ecosystems are to be destroyed, restored, or kept as they naturally occur. Through education of the needs of different ecosystems to be kept healthy, civilization can be allowed to appropriately take the step towards the preservation of earth.
Good job, I think this final piece definitely fits the assignment better. I was able to distinguish the similarities and differences between civilization and nature. I would like to see more of you and your opinions. For the next assignment, try and put yourself in your writing more.
Reflection #2 (RHS March 16 -- 171 March 25)
I'm pretty positive that I am having an easier time with using my creativity to think of new, interesting ideas and topics to illustrate in my writings. Having a drake writing buddy has also helped along with that also, by encouraging me to seek a second opinion.
Rough Draft Argument (posted RHS April 6 -- 171 April 8)
I don't have any idea where i'm going with this, but I have a feeling that I will continue to enjoy playing the devils advocate on this one.
Earth, is simply another planet. The only difference between its self, and the rest of the known universe, is that it has a more complex ecosystem. This very ecosystem has been able to survive on its own for billions of years. It has adapted to the most extreme of climate changes ranging from the ice age, to a mass shower storm of burning meteorites. Whatever the humans on this planet do to it, life will sustain itself. It will survive. What argument are you making? Are you trying saying that us as humans don't think the earth will be able to sustain itsf, but really it can?
There is little to no point in attempting to “save” any of the animals that are going extinct. So what if there are no more tigers, or large predators? The large predators have down sized in the past from the towering 90 or so ft tall, to our own measly 4 ft tall predators that we have today. Tigers are pretty big! I dont think i would ever call them "measly" what about ocean predators? It may even be beneficial to the human race to no longer have any other beast competing with us for the top apex predator position why do you say this? Aren't all animals important to our ecosystem?. There have been mass extinctions of species of animals in the past, yet life today is just as diverse as it has ever been. Is it diverse outside the human population?
Unless you live in a hole, you are aware that our temperatures change with the seasons every year. I will ask you why it is so tragic that the earth collectively has raised in temperature little over one tiny degree. Why is it a big deal? How does this tie back to your argument that the earth will survive? This pishposh about global warming, is a large piece of bologna stuff stated by Al Gore so that he could gain a better political standing. Back when humans were still cavemen, they were probably happy as could be to see their earth lifting from an icy fortress of tundra, into a planet that has more accessible resources for them to utilize, and expand their populations. It is more so in recent years of advanced technology and communication, that scientist have been recording (most likely for lack of nothing better to do) all of the different temperatures around the world. It’s only since we’ve had factual evidence stating that the climate temperature is rising, that we’ve been alarmed. Before when no one knew, obviously no one cared. And weren’t we all the happier for it? All it is, is one more thing to fuel a panic attack of stereotypical type-A people who worry too much about what they can’t change. You sound almost angry in your last sentence. Is there a different way you can close your piece? Because you ended with more of a hostile tone I felt it was almost not finished.
In conclusion, mother earth, is a big girl, that can handle herself just fine, with or without us.
Hi, if my comments are messy, I've been traveling all weekend and did this off my phone! If something doesn't make sense, just ask me. I really like your topic. How can you construct this as more of an argument? Could you give more examples of how the earth is able to take care of itself? What about people who genuinely care about the environment? You are very passionate about nature, but this makes it sound like you don't believe in what you care for. Maybe you could do something where you explain that people dont have to go to great lengths to help preserve our planet but give small examples of how we can just maintain a healthy earth. Happy Easter!!
Revision Argument (posted RHS April 13 -- 171 April 15)
If you’re the type of person who is a green-living tree hugger, then I think that is absolutely fantastic. No, really, I’m not being sarcastic. I’m actually a nature fanatic myself. It’s important to have a group of individuals out there that fully understand the beauty of nature and what is supplies us. While I like this opener, it contradicts everything you say later in the piece. You explain later that we don't need people freaking out about saving the world, yet you praise them here. What if we didn't have people who cared about the environment? Whether that be food, or that feeling of pure bliss when you survey an awe in spiring landscape. Awkward phrasing. A person who knows, and has experienced that very feeling, is undoubtedly one who would join an advocacy in order to preserve such a sight. Well I’m here to save you from that poor decision. Organizations who are based on “saving the earth” are filled with more garbage then they are with any real substance of worth. Trust me, I’ve been a part of, and have studied more than a few. Instead of saying "Trust me," show me. This kind of takes an assumption that readers know what is wrong with them. Are they corrupt? Go in depth about how they function as an organization. Even the groups that say they dislike propaganda, still do an excellent job of portraying exaggerated stories and examples to get their point across. Or worse, they use it to make a living off of your misplaced, donated dollar. It’s easy to state any old opinion without knowing the facts, but is an opinion with no sound reasoning really worth anything in the long run? I’m here to give you the other side of the story that will lower your blood pressure and anxiety.
Earth, is simply another planet. The only difference between its self, and the rest of the known universe, is that it has a more complex ecosystem. This very ecosystem has been able to survive on its own for billions of years. It has adapted to the most extreme of climate changes ranging from the ice age, to a mass shower storm of burning meteorites. Society is under the incorrect assumption that we need to baby our planet and everything in it. Whatever the humans on this planet do to it, life will sustain itself. It will survive.
There is little to no point in attempting to “save” any of the animals that are going extinct. Are you able to give an example of how an animals extinction would not have an impact on us? What would happen if we lost tigers? So what if there are no more tigers or large predators? The large predators have down sized in the past from the towering 90 or so ft tall, to our own measly 4 ft tall terrestrial predators that we have today. It may even be beneficial to the human race to no longer have any other beast competing with us for the top apex predator position. It is a credible fact that every animal plays a significant role in its specific ecosystem. It is also a legitimate fact that there have been mass extinctions of species of animals in the past, yet life today is just as diverse as it has ever been. How has the ecosystem been affected in the past?
Nature is a pro at rolling with the punches, and adapting to changes in the environment. I recently read an interestingly put article on Yahoo. There was a man who called our earth a “dynamic system,” and by that, he was bringing up the concept of dynamic stability. The brilliant philosopher stated that, “when changes occur, other changes tend to return things back the way they were.” This entails that whatever we do to this planet, it will eventually return to its healthy and thriving state.
Unless you live in a hole, you are aware that our temperatures change with the seasons every year. I will ask you why it is so tragic that the earth collectively has raised in temperature little over one tiny degree. This pishposh about global warming, is a large piece of bologna stuff stated by Al Gore so that he could gain a better political standing. Why do people think it is a big deal? Back when humans were still cavemen, they were probably happy as could be to see their earth lifting from an icy fortress of tundra, into a planet that has more accessible resources for them to utilize, and expand their populations. It is more so in recent years of advanced technology and communication, that scientist have been recording (most likely for lack of nothing better to do) all of the different temperatures around the world. It’s only since we’ve had factual evidence stating that the climate temperature is rising, that we’ve been alarmed. Before when no one knew, obviously no one cared. And weren’t we all the happier for it? All it is, is one more thing to fuel a panic attack of stereotypical type-A people who worry too much about what they can’t change.
In conclusion, mother earth is a big girl that can handle herself just fine, with or without us.
For some reason, I really enjoy closing my piece with a one sentence conclusion. It’s straight and to the point, without toe tapping around the final resolution.
I think it’s interesting that you were able to pick up on my tone. I sounded angry, because I was. I always get myself all worked up about how stupid global warming is.
And I didn’t understand what you were getting at when you asked if it is ‘still diverse outside the human population’?
And p.s, Tigers are on average 3 ft tall. They just seem taller because of their power and muscular body. It's more that they have a large presence. Bears are the 4 ft tall predators that I was referring to. And yeah, if I were going to include length, then ocean predators would be much larger. But then I would be undermining my pointJ
Final Argument (posted RHS April 20 -- 171 April 23)
If you’re the type of person who is a green-living tree hugger, then I think that is absolutely fantastic. No, really, I’m not being sarcastic. I’m actually a nature fanatic myself. It’s important to have a group of individuals out there that fully understand the beauty of nature and what it supplies us.Whether that be food, or that feeling of pure bliss when you survey a breath taking landscape. A person who knows, and has experienced that very feeling, is undoubtedly one who would join an advocacy in order to preserve such a sight. Well I’m here to save you from that poor decision. Organizations who are based on “saving the earth” are filled with more garbage then they are with any real substance of worth. Trust me, I’ve been a part of, and have studied more than a few. Even the groups that say they dislike propaganda, still do an excellent job of portraying exaggerated stories and examples to get their point across. Or worse, they use it to make a living off of your misplaced, donated dollar. Can you give a personal account of dealing with these organizations? It’s easy to state any old opinion without knowing the facts, but is an opinion with no sound reasoning really worth anything in the long run? I’m here to give you the other side of the story that will lower both your blood pressure and anxiety.Earth, is simply another planet. The only difference between its self, and the rest of the known universe, is that it has a more complex ecosystem. This very ecosystem has been able to survive on its own for billions of years. It has adapted to the most extreme of climate changes ranging from the ice age, to a mass shower storm of burning meteorites. Society is under the incorrect assumption that we need to baby our planet and everything in it. No matter what the humans on this planet do to it, life will sustain itself. It will survive.There is little to no point in attempting to “save” any of the animals that are going extinct. So what if there are no more tigers or large predators? It is a credible fact that every animal plays a significant role in its specific ecosystem. It is also a legitimate fact that there have been mass extinctions of species of animals in the past, yet life today is just as diverse as it has ever been. The large predators have down sized in the past from the towering 90 or so feet tall carnivorous dinosaurs, to our own measly 4 ft tall terrestrial predators that we have today. It may even be beneficial to the human race to no longer have any other beast competing with us for the top apex predator position. Nature is a pro at rolling with the punches, and adapting to changes in the environment. I recently read an interestingly put article on Yahoo. There was a man who called our earth a “dynamic system,” and by that, he was bringing up the concept of dynamic stability. The brilliant philosopher stated that, “when changes occur, other changes tend to return things back the way they were.” I really like this section, it adds a lot to the argument. Are you able to reflect on it? Did you take anything away from the article that you can reiterate to your readers? This entails that whatever we do to this planet, it will eventually return to its healthy and thriving state. Unless you live in a hole, you are aware that our temperatures change with the seasons every year. I will ask you why it is so tragic that the earth collectively has raised in temperature little over one tiny degree. This pishposh about global warming, is a large piece of bologna stuff stated by Al Gore so that he could gain a better political standing. He has the public all freaked out about the how the ozone is being eaten away by high carbon dioxide levels. Good. I recently read an article from the TCT renewable resource blog that stated, “…the ridiculously oversized charts in “An Inconvenient Truth” clearly demonstrate the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature increase. On the other, MIT climate researchers have demonstrated that carbon dioxide level increases follow temperature increases, not precede it.” This, immediately shows me the frightening large amount of propaganda that has been used against the masses in order to manipulate us. Back when humans were still cavemen, they were probably happy as could be to see their earth lifting from an icy fortress of tundra, into a planet that has more accessible resources for them to utilize, and expand their populations. It is more so in recent years of advanced technology and communication, that scientist have been recording (most likely for lack of nothing better to do) all of the different temperatures around the world. It’s only since we’ve had factual evidence stating that the climate temperature is rising, that we’ve been alarmed. Before when no one knew, obviously no one cared. And weren’t we all the happier for it? All it is, is one more thing to fuel a panic attack of stereotypical type-A people who worry too much about what they can’t change.In conclusion, mother earth is a big girl that can handle herself just fine, with or without us.
Side note: you said, “While I like this opener, it contradicts everything you say later in the piece. You explain later that we don't need people freaking out about saving the world, yet you praise them here. What if we didn't have people who cared about the environment?” Well I would like to bring to your attention that I said nothing about how I liked people who were trying to save the earth. I stated that I appreciate those who understand its value and beauty. If your reader is confused, don't you think you should try and clarify?
Reflection #3 (posted RHS April 23)
The reflection for the most recent essay is essentially the same as the past few, because the writing buddy consistantly helped to improve my writing pieces. In the essay it was beneficial to have another perspective to help with determining how the audience would react to the arguement. She made me think a little deeper about each of the claims that I made, so that I could develop them further.